Go to page

Go to page

My elementary school history teacher was a big WW2 fanatic (and a big Communist) so he would always give me assignments about WW2, for example I had to research the history of a certain Partisan brigade and present my findings to the class. While researching these topics, I realized just how fun history is and I instantly became a fan. Plus, we Serbs can be really proud of our history so I was exposed to history from an early age. Over the years, I lost most of my interest in WW2 and started looking into some other topics.

I've always been fascinated by Charles 11 too. Fascinating contrast with the court of the relatively prissy court of Charles 1. Charles 11 was apparently acutely aware of his father's death all of his life, and was always afraid it could happen to him.Was it he who had Cromwell dug up and his body chastised?

There is a pretty good biography of him by Dennis Wheatley, called "Old Rowley; A Private Life Of Charles 11"", the name of one of Charles' stallions. Used as a nickname (not to his face) by some of his courtiers,.It was written in 1933. I just checked, it's still in print. A relatively slim volume, enjoyable reading,

In recent years I've become interested in Victorian England. I've been amused, but not surprise at the sanitised Version of the life of Queen Victoria on TV at present., She was apparently a very unpleasant, even obnoxious woman, especially after Prince Albert died in 1861. Seems she was completely lacking the life skills to deal with his death appropriately. So, she withdrew and ruminated on her loss for the remaining 40 years of her life.

Because of her withdrawal from life, she pretty much minded her own business, and was no problem at all to whatever government was in power. I think that behaviour probably helped extend the life of the British Monarchy for the next 100 years. I'd be very surprised if the monarchy lasts to the end of this century though. I'll be pretty old by then. .

Another tidbit; Queen Victoria received an annual stipend from the government. Because she was too mean to spit and because she remained quietly at home, she spent very little of the allowance.This saved money formed the basis of the vast wealth of the present Queen ,

I've always been fascinated by Charles 11 too. Fascinating contrast with the court of the relatively prissy court of Charles 1. Charles 11 was apparently acutely aware of his father's death all of his life, and was always afraid it could happen to him.Was it he who had Cromwell dug up and his body chastised?

Definitely. I'd say the figure of Charles I is quite interesting, too. Although he wasn't a philanderer like Charles II or James VII/II, he wasn't a prude, either. After all, he had nine children, five of which survived into adulthood, and two of which who became kings. He was very much in love with Henrietta Maria and was a rather reserved, albeit charming person. I wouldn't call him prissy, nor would I call his court as such (the women's dresses had dangerously low decolletages!), but you're right, in that it does strike quite an interesting contrast with his namesake's. Even James turned away from his prolific womanising days, in the end. As the Duke of York (yes) he was exceedingly promiscuous, but was racked with guilt about it, as a good Catholic. His court, upon his succession, was rather straight laced. Quite interesting! Charles had said that he could see James was guilty for being such a profligate, as he chose only decidedly ugly mistresses.

Well, yes. I don't think Charles was afraid that it would happen to him, because he never went down that path. He was all too aware of what had happened to his father, and was wise enough to avoid such a road. The same cannot be said of poor James, of course. I recall reading some time ago that Charles predicted James would end up getting usurped, but I'll have to check in on it. It may be apocryphal, like Louis XV's "après moi, le déluge" quote. And yes, it was Charles who had Cromwell's body dug up and tried for treason, two years after his death. Cromwell's head remained on a spike above Westminster all throughout Charles' 25-year reign.

There is a pretty good biography of him by Dennis Wheatley, called "Old Rowley; A Private Life Of Charles 11"", the name of one of Charles' stallions. Used as a nickname (not to his face) by some of his courtiers,.It was written in 1933. I just checked, it's still in print. A relatively slim volume, enjoyable reading,

There was a lady at his court who was, apparently, singing rather loudly about Charles being "Old Rowley" in her chambers, when all of a sudden, she heard a knock on her door. Upon inquiring who it was, she got the response, "Old Rowley himself." Charles II doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would get upset over a slightly off-colour nickname. After all, when Charles was called the "father of his people", someone (I believe it was Buckingham?) replied with, "Well, father of most of them." Wilmot soundly explored Charles' prolific sexuality in his poems, as well, but that was more treasonous than good fun, and he got kicked out of court many times.

I'll definitely look for that book, though. I'm afraid that it'll be a bit dated and more fluff than history, but I'd still love to have it.

I admit it's probably 40 years since I went through my "Dennis Wheatley phase" ,when I bought and read 50/70 of his books. (All second hand or on remainder)

I liked most of his books, which I thought at the time were very well researched. "Old Rowley" is one of Wheatley's rare non fiction works.. I thought it was terrific. . Probably was at the time. But, it was written before WW2! As I'm constantly reminded on this site, history is a living discipline. New information is unearthed every day. After around 100 years, some things are simply out of date.

I admit it's probably 40 years since I went through my "Dennis Wheatley phase" ,when I bought and read 50/70 of his books. (All second hand or on remainder)

I liked most of his books, which I thought at the time were very well researched. "Old Rowley" is one of Wheatley's rare non fiction works.. I thought it was terrific. . Probably was at the time. But, it was written before WW2! As I'm constantly reminded on this site, history is a living discipline. New information is unearthed every day. After around 100 years, some things are simply out of date.

Reading about islamic kingdoms of india, i was fascinated on how exactly did india remain a hindu majority despite muslims ruling india for 800 years,i was still a very devout hindu back then.
This was a myth,reading about which sparked my initial curiosity in history.

There will be multiple events in this regard! The third battle of Panipat ( January 1761 ) between the Marathas under Sadashiv Rao Bhau Peshwe and Ahmedshah Abdali was the one event that constantly tugged at my mind after my first reading. It was a keenly fought battle with Marathas almost triumphant, only to lose in the end. For a modern Maharashtrian boy, it was overwhelmingly tragic.
Napoleon, the soldier of fortune and commander extraordinary also attracted me to read more and more about him and his times when I was a boy.

Westerns made me fall in love with history, and the old movie about the 300 at Thermopylae when I was eight or nine clinched the deal. It was made in the fifties. I used to think I was a reincarnated Spartan, a prisoner from the Island, but a church elder who also loved history said I just had a sense for the time. It's one of the reasons why I have nothing but contempt for generalities.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.